Worst nightmare....

[highlandsflyer]

Try telling that to a horse.

 

[cyfa2809]

Try telling that to a horse.

Neigh.

 

[JamesM]

Yes granted, if the car has started to turn into the side road and the pedestrian hasn't started to cross then the pedestrian should wait. But if the car is waiting to turn and the pedestrian is waiting to cross who should go first???

The car - it has priority on the road.

Once the pedestrian is actually crossing, though - I'll grant you, they have priority.

But the car is currently on a different road, not the road that the pedestrian is trying to cross!!! :?

So?

All other things being equal, cars have priority on the road. If the pedestrian is already crossing when the car arrives, the pedestrian has priority. Otherwise (ie pedestrian is not currently on the road) vehicles have.

If you're asking whether it's OK for a pedestrian to stride out in the road, knowing full well they'll hold up traffic, then clearly they don't have that priority. If you're asking in a stalemate scenario, whether it's OK for a pedestrian to stride into the road, inconvenience normal traffic, that they can (or should be able to) see and predict, the answer is still no - in the assumption that they're not striding out onto a pedestrian crossing.

All other things being equal, pedestrians merely have priority when they're already there, on the road, when traffic arrives - they don't have priority to assert over vehicles in preference, though, outside of crossings.

The problem is, is that some, mistakenly extrapolate the "pedestrian has priority when crossing" thing to assume that pedestrians have priority before they're even on the road. And conversely, some people wrongly extrapolate the whole, vehicles on the road, have priority over pedestrians on the pavement, such that when they turn into a road, with pedestrians already crossing, they rage at the pedestrians. Well there's two things to that: 1) once the pedestrian(s) is / are there, they have priority 2) it could well be that pedestrians have launched out into the road, when really they shouldn't - and it's merely a race condition whereby they've got there first.

So where do you have to be in your car for it to be okay for me to step of the pavement and cross the side road that you intend turning into? Where is the go no go point?

 

[cyfa2809]

Go no go would be when you see each other and work out the intent?

 

[JamesM]

So the car has the right to turn into a road he currently doesn't occupy over the pedestrians right to step onto the same road? That basically gives the car a priority over this new piece of road that neither have currently laid claim too, meaning the cars have a greater right of way. Unless of course the pedestrian was never on the pavement and was infact walking down the road next to the pavement. But that would just put him in the same position as a car traveling up the road which would also have the right of way here. I'm strugling to see here how a pedestrian has anymore rights of way than a car, I just know they do.

If a car is at a junction pulling out onto a road from a side road and a pedestrian is waiting on the pavement to cross that side road who has right of way here? Surely the car must give way as he is at a give way line?

Highlandsflyer, this must be why runners run on the road when there is a pavement available, it gives them the same rights of way as a car, not less as would be the case if they used the pavement.

 

[Neil]

Yes granted, if the car has started to turn into the side road and the pedestrian hasn't started to cross then the pedestrian should wait. But if the car is waiting to turn and the pedestrian is waiting to cross who should go first???

The car - it has priority on the road.

Once the pedestrian is actually crossing, though - I'll grant you, they have priority.

But the car is currently on a different road, not the road that the pedestrian is trying to cross!!! :?

So?

All other things being equal, cars have priority on the road. If the pedestrian is already crossing when the car arrives, the pedestrian has priority. Otherwise (ie pedestrian is not currently on the road) vehicles have.

If you're asking whether it's OK for a pedestrian to stride out in the road, knowing full well they'll hold up traffic, then clearly they don't have that priority. If you're asking in a stalemate scenario, whether it's OK for a pedestrian to stride into the road, inconvenience normal traffic, that they can (or should be able to) see and predict, the answer is still no - in the assumption that they're not striding out onto a pedestrian crossing.

All other things being equal, pedestrians merely have priority when they're already there, on the road, when traffic arrives - they don't have priority to assert over vehicles in preference, though, outside of crossings.

The problem is, is that some, mistakenly extrapolate the "pedestrian has priority when crossing" thing to assume that pedestrians have priority before they're even on the road. And conversely, some people wrongly extrapolate the whole, vehicles on the road, have priority over pedestrians on the pavement, such that when they turn into a road, with pedestrians already crossing, they rage at the pedestrians. Well there's two things to that: 1) once the pedestrian(s) is / are there, they have priority 2) it could well be that pedestrians have launched out into the road, when really they shouldn't - and it's merely a race condition whereby they've got there first.

So where do you have to be in your car for it to be okay for me to step of the pavement and cross the side road that you intend turning into? Where is the go no go point?

When the road is clear and no vehicles approaching.

That includes side roads, where we should expect to check nothing is turning into it, too, before crossing.

Just like kids would be taught at school.

That doesn't expect clairvoyancy, nor does it easily cater for scenarios where people are driving too fast for the road / conditions / environment.

 

[Neil]

So the car has the right to turn into a road he currently doesn't occupy over the pedestrians right to step onto the same road?

Yes, assuming the pedestrian is still on the pavement, and all other things are equal - say no crossings.

That basically gives the car a priority over this new piece of road that neither have currently laid claim too, meaning the cars have a greater right of way.

Cars have greater priority than pedestrians, when pedestrians are not actually crossing, and not on some kind of crossing.

Unless of course the pedestrian was never on the pavement and was infact walking down the road next to the pavement. But that would just put him in the same position as a car traveling up the road which would also have the right of way here. I'm strugling to see here how a pedestrian has anymore rights of way than a car, I just know they do.

When a pedestrian is crossing the road, they have priority.

When they're not crossing the road, and are on the pavement, vehicles have priority.

All other things being equal, and we're not talking about any kind of pedestrian crossing.

If a car is at a junction pulling out onto a road from a side road and a pedestrian is waiting on the pavement to cross that side road who has right of way here? Surely the car must give way as he is at a give way line?

The car has priority, until such time as the pedestrian is already crossing.

The give way lines are to show priority to traffic using the road the car is about to join.

 

[highlandsflyer]

It is all very clear in the Highway Code, of course.

Regardless of what mode of transport, I slow down passing parked cars in case a cat/dog/child runs out. I expect big people to have a little more sense, but I allow for it as well. I gave up running on pavement a while ago, but when I did I was ultra cautious around roads.

Rights are mere semantics relative to fast heavy metal things with pedestrian unfriendly surfaces.

When driving on urban roads you should expect pedestrians to be unaware of your approach. You should always be ready to take evasive action, which means progress cautiously within your visibility at all times.

The sense is to never assume having a right of way overrides the reality of a developing situation.

There is no point trying to assert your rights from under the wheels of a lorry.

 

[dyna-ti]

With regards to the highway code :?
Was speaking to the brother in law who is a council lawyer[in charge in fact] and he was saying something about the code being just that a code not a set in stone law and if it came down to it you could argue this point in court.
Ill have to quiz him further :?

 

[highlandsflyer]

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/travelandtransport/highwaycode/dg_070236